£24.3m is nothing to McCartney, the guy is worth just over like 800 mil i think. If McCartney had a brain he would have got a prenup.
Did he honestly think that a women half his age would find him attractive.

ps there is no such thing as an honest person digging for gold coz most of the time the gold is on someone else's land/property. I think in that situation its theft, i need to double check the rule on finders keepers.

[img]http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/impo/ST3389~Gold-Digger-Pos...

LilSis wrote:

[img]http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/impo/ST3389~Gold-Digger-Pos...

My great grandfather used to pan for gold in the Australian outback. A few years ago my cousin visited the exact same place an had a go panning for gold.

It has pretty much all gone by now...

I go to the Royal Courts of Justice almost every day for work. During the Mills-McCartney case there were LOADS of people idly milling about, eager to catch a glimpse of a Beatle.

I don't think it was a very appropriate time to ask for an autograph.

I also saw Paul McCartney in Abbey Road studios a few years ago. But that is a story for another day...

I dnt agree with pre-nups to an extent; I dont agree to drawing up an agreement before even getting married about how much money i'll be entitled to if divorce does occur however, in regards to children i would definately consider having a pre-nuptial agreement drawn out. I'd wanna go into the marriage with peace of mind that if for whatever reason we can't stay together, the children will be allowed to stay with me.

Wow LilSis. I don't see why a caring man would consent to that in particular - it gives either partner so much room to abuse the marriage.

Yaqub, what do exactly work as?

Courage wrote:

Yaqub, what do exactly work as?

Papparazi/celebrity stalker.

OK, not really. I am general office for a law firm which involves me going to issue applications at court (as well as a myriad of other duties). Not for too much longer, insha'Allah.

MuslimSisLilSis wrote:

I dnt agree with pre-nups to an extent; I dont agree to drawing up an agreement before even getting married about how much money i'll be entitled to if divorce does occur however, in regards to children i would definately consider having a pre-nuptial agreement drawn out. I'd wanna go into the marriage with peace of mind that if for whatever reason we can't stay together, the children will be allowed to stay with me.

Yeah i know.. it can work both ways; i know of someone who's denying the father of her child access for no known reason after getting divorced to him.

But thats just me.. kids will always be my soft point and i know theres guys out there who wouldnt take children away from their mothers but at the same time there are loads of guys who would happily do so.. and i just wouldnt want to take that risk.

Just coz you decide to take out a pre nup in regards to keeping your children after divorce it doesnt necessarily mean that you can have them. Pre nups are NOT binding but persuasive on the courts. The ultimate decision rests with the court. 9 times of 10 the mother does keep the kids and the father gets to see them on the agreed terms.

However, if a child is of mature age ie 11/12 then the courts will take into consideration their views. If the kid decides they want to live with their father and the courts accept this, then the mother cant do jack.
Also if the mother is deemed unfit then the courts will award custody of the kids to the father e.g. Britney and Ferderline

If a husband and wife divorce the mother cannot stop the father from seeing the kids for no apparent reason coz by law BOTH are the legal guardians of the children. However, if the mother suffered domestic violence during the marriage at the hands of the father then the courts can and in most cases can stop the father from having access to his kids.

Personally i dont think there is anything wrong with having a pre nup in relation to division of assets/money.

@Ya'qub feel free to correct me on the above if i have got it wrong.

Heather Mills IS and SHOULD entitled to a proportion and share of McCartney's wealth - it just so happens that hes not short of a bob or two. She'd still receive something if he was living on next to nothing..

She didnt get all that much out of the settlement - technically the courts begin the splitting of assets/ancillary relief at 50-50.. so she did pretty badly

You wrote:

Amal wrote:

Heather Mills IS and SHOULD entitled to a proportion and share of McCartney's wealth

Why?

Not talking all legal like (because that is a whole other language thaty makes no sense), but in an ethical/moral sense. why?

Did she earn it? Did he earn it due to her? Did she have to give up wealth to marry him?

IMO She should (maybe) have been given a bus fare home. And funding for the child.

Actually I was replying from a legal point of view lol, sort of taking into account that they were married for 4 years altogether, and have a child.. But im sure there was more to the marriage than meets the eye.. as far as I understand, she was already quite wealthy before she met him, so she propably didnt need the money - she was probably just going through the normal legal process as is expected

The reason that a wife is entitled to a share of her husband's wealth is because she is somehow contributed to him gaining it. E.G If she looked after the house and kids while he worked at his career or something like that...The court views that they made the money together (although it was payed into his bank account).

But in Heather Mills' case, she didn't write Yesterday, she didn't write Live and Let Die, she wasn't even around during his life when he made most of his money.

This is why she got so little (in comparision to how much money he has). The court understood that the high-profile she now has (being constantly hounded by photgraphers etc) in addition to her looking after their kid, so she was still entitled to rather a substantial amount.

I can't believe I'm being a Heather Mills apologist. Eww... [i]*goes to wash hands[/i]

Islam already has something similar to a pre-nup, its called a dowry.

And in Islam you have to talk about the serious stuff before you marry and not just jump into it, so you that should give you a peace of mind.

You wrote:

No.

There is a "Mahr", but that is not a pre-nup. It is a gift. That MUST be given BEFORE the marriage is consummated. (Those that say it will be given in the case of divorce are in the wrong.)

A woman's wealth stays her own. A man must provide for the whole family.

In the case of a divorce, he must only provide for her for the period during which the divorce is going through (which is between three and 9 months depending upon the circumstances).

Its 'similar' to a pre-nup, although not the same.

It fulfils the same roll- protecting a woman economically if she is otherwise dependant on her husband for financial support.

What if you dont want a Mahr?

You wrote:

I am pretty certain that I have read/heard of a situation where a married woman in Makkah became Muslim, migrated to Madinah. After one of the battles (Badr?) her husband was captured. She requested that he accept Islam as her Mahr. No idea if this idea is a special case or not, as they had been married before.

This case may have been before Mahr became obligatorily.

Naz wrote:

What if you dont want a Mahr?

Then we'll force you to accept it! We'll tie you up and stuff it in your pocket/mouth! Just kidding. If you desperately want to chuck it down the drain then, I suppose there's not much we can do to stop you.

Courage wrote:

Naz wrote:

What if you dont want a Mahr?

Then we'll force you to accept it! We'll tie you up and stuff it in your pocket/mouth! Just kidding. If you desperately want to chuck it down the drain then, I suppose there's not much we can do to stop you.

Make me muhahahah lol

Its just that me personally i would feel too guilty taking someone elses money esp if its money that i have not worked for. Thats the only reason i would refuse a Mahr. Even if i borrow money off friends (very rare) i cant sleep at night until ive paid it them back. While a man is obliged to give a Mahr it would seem that a women does not have to accept it or can return it to her husband.

[url=http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=C8WTx4]...

Quote:

"First of all, it is to be stressed that mahr is a wife's right, which becomes binding upon the husband once the marriage is contracted. It is obligatory on the husband to pay mahr to his wife [b]unless she expressly, by her own will and without any pressure, tells her husband that he does not have to pay it, or she returns the amount of mahr to him.[/b]

I have emailed a scholar to get a second opinion about this but its gonna take 2 weeks to get a reply back.

Are you married? If you are then your husband is lucky guy!

Darth Fuzzy Wuzzy wrote:

Are you married? If you are then your husband is lucky guy!

Stop flirting with her, man!

Mahr doesn't have to be money,my husband gave me several things,an ornately printed rare Quran edition,a bio of prophet (saw),and other books plus a gorg jewellery piece ordered from abroad especialy for moi. i won't return these they're gifts,i dont feel bad accepting them because its my right and he gave me it as a present you don't return gifts unless there is a good reason.As for a substantial sum of money i d on't agree with that sort of thing, thats why we both exchanged gifts rather than just money. if he had no mahr coz he couldnt afford it,i wouldn't have cried over it,its material stuff it comes and goes, but as jello sorry jlo says love dont cost a thing.

As for heather mills being a gold digger i dont believe she is,when you take into account how much her Ex is worth. the media hate her,and from day one they had a hate campaign against her. Had she been a tall, flawless blonde bimbo who bowed to the medias every whim and barked and rolled when they told her, they'd have loved her to bits. But coz she is not attractive in the typical conventional sense, this is used against her, the fact that she has an artifical limb has been ridiculed on many occasions, the fact that she is actually intelligent and uses her skills to speak up on issues shes' passionate about, and of course against the media, is all the more reason why she is hated. The public however hate her simply coz the media has told them to, with baseless articles and derogatory comments about her appearance and lifestyle choices i.e she's a vegan, apparently thats a crime?.

If she has been ms joe bloggs taking the same action as many women and men do these days no one would have said shes a gold digger, more likely oh shes doing it for the benefit of her kids. But coz she's heather mills she must be a gold digger right?

As for prenups there's no such concept in the UK, whilst it can be done i don't think its legally binding here, whilst in the usa it is binding.

Question asked: Apart from money and gold what else can be given as a Mahr? Can knowledge about Islam (ie knowing the Qur'an by heart or having learnt a number of surahs by heart) constitute as a Mahr?

reply given

Quote:

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

There is no limitation for a minimum or a maximum amount for Mahr. Imam al-Shafi’e narrated in his book al-Umm from Abu Yahyah that he said: 'I asked Imam Rabeeah about the minimum Mahr, he said, any amount that is agreed on by both parties. I said, ‘If it is only a Dirham?’ He said, ‘Even if it is half a Dirham.’ Then I said, ‘If it is less than that,’ he said, ‘yes, even if it is a handful wheat or a seed of wheat’.

However, there are many texts that encourage minimizing the expenditure of a marriage to make it easy and to put an end to the evil that exists because of remaining spinster or unmarried. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) have said: "The most blessed marriage is the one with the least expenditure".

Allah knows best.

Doesnt really answer my question. So i went away and did my own research and here is what i found:

[url=http://www.jannah.org/sisters/marr.html wrote:

Jannah.org[/url]]The wife is entitled to a marriage gift that is her own. This may be prompt or deferred depending on the agreement between the parties. A marriage is not valid without mahr. [b]It does not have to be money or gold. It can be non-material like teaching her to read the Qur'an. " [/b]Mahr" is a gift from the groom to the bride. This is the Islamic law, unlike some cultures whereby the brides parents pay the future husband to marry the daughter. This practice degrades women and is contrary to the spirit of Islam. There is no specification in the Qur'an as to what or how much the Mahr has to be. It depends on the parties involved.

[url=http://www.kashar.net/islam/?link=themahr wrote:

Kashar[/url]]The Minimum Amount of the Dowry There are five distinct opinions concerning the minimum amount required for something to be considered acceptable as a dowry.

The First Opinion
The minimum dowry is ten dirham (somewhere around ten dollars or the price of a goat today). This is based on the hadith:
"La mahra aqallu min 'asharati dirham."
"There is no mahr less then ten dirhams."
While Ibn Hajr found this hadith to be "hassan", most other scholars of hadith judged it as weak. Also, it is in contradiction to the hadith cited earlier about the iron ring - which would not have been worth that amount.

The Second Opinion
According to the Malikis, the minimum required for a dowry is three dirhams. It must be something legal according to the shari'a which can be handed over to the wife. It must be a specified amount.
There argument, also, is that in their school, this is the minimum amount for which the thief gets the punishment of cutting. They also cite the verse:
{Wa man lam yastiti' minkum taulan an yankiha al-muhsanaati al-mu'minaati fa min ma malakat aymaanukum min fatayaatikum al-mu'minaat...}
{And whoever of you does not have the means to wed free believing women, so from the believing women that your right hands possess...} An-Nisaa:25
Their argument is that at-taul means wealth and one who does not have three dirhams is not considered as possession any wealth. However, there are other interpretations about what the word means in this verse.

The Third Opinion
This opinion states that anything that can be called "wealth" (maal) and is accepted by the parties is permissible as the dowry.
In essence, this opinion states that there is no minimum for the dowry. This is the opinion of the Shafi'is, Hanbalis, Dhahiris, Ibn Wahb of the Malikis, Al-Hassan Al-Basri and others. It is supported by the verse:
{...Wa uhilla lakum ma waraa'a dhalikum an tabtaghoo bi amwaalikum...}
{...All others have been made lawful for you provided you seek (them in marriage) with your property...} An-Nisaa:24

The Fourth Opinion
Anything which can be called shai'an (a "thing") is acceptable as dowry. This is the opinion of Ibn Hazm and is based on the first part of the hadith about the ring of iron where the Prophet (sas) said:
"Iltamis shai'an. Qaala ma ajidu shai'an. Qaala: "Iltamis wa lau khaatiman min hadeed..."
"Search for something." He said: I have nothing. He (sas) said: "Search for something, even if it is just a ring made from iron." Bukhari & Muslim

[b]The Fifth Opinion
Anything which has value, regardless of whether it be something material or something non-material, is acceptable as dowry. According to Ibn Al-Qayyim, this is the strongest opinion.
In fact, it seems to be the only opinion which takes into consideration all of the different hadith related to the subject. For example, Umm Sulaim accepted Abu Talha's embracing of Islam as her mahr. On another occasion, the Prophet (sas) acceepted as dowry what a person knew of the Qur'an saying:
"Idh-hab faqad mallaktukahaa bima ma'aka min al-qur'an"
"Go, for I have put her under your charge with what you have of the Qur'an." Bukhari & Muslim
In other words, his mahr was to teach the woman what he knew of the Qur'an.[/b]